Tuesday, March 22, 2016

NFL, Businesses Declare War on Georgia Christians

The Georgia legislature has passed a very weak, watered-down version of a religious freedom bill (RFRA) but the former Democrat, now Republican Governor Nathan Deal may veto the bill as every sexual revolutionary force available is threatening to cripple the state economically if Christians are allowed to live as their faith dictates.

“If the governor did make the decision to veto the bill, that most definitely does not end the debate. The faith community is not just going to say, ‘Oh well. He vetoed the bill. Let’s pack up and go home.’ It becomes more intense in 2017.”-- State Senator Josh McKoon

The Georgia state legislature on Thursday approved a bill to allow faith-based establishments, including churches, schools and other organizations, to refuse service or employment to same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs. While groups such as the Georgia Baptist Mission Board see the bill as a First Amendment victory, opponents argue that the bill promotes discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Currently more than 400 businesses, including large corporations such as Microsoft and Virgin Atlantic, stand against the bill and could threaten Georgia's status as a leading business state.

The National Football League says Atlanta's chance of landing a Super Bowl could be in jeopardy if Gov. Nathan Deal does not veto the controversial religious freedom bill, which was approved last week by Georgia lawmakers.

The NFL released a statement last week that said the NFL emphasizes tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibits discrimination.

. . . The bill, which has undergone several changes, says faith-based organizations can refuse to provide certain services to those who violate their "sincerely held religious belief." It also says faith-based groups could not be forced to hire or retain employees whose beliefs are contrary to their own and that the government must prove a "compelling governmental interest" before it interferes with a person's exercise of religion.

Business leaders and major corporations urging Gov. Deal to veto it, threatening to pull business from the state, or criticizing it as out of step with the times. This time, they include both high-profile leaders sounding off on Twitter, as well as large coordinated groups of businesses that have formed in opposition to the bill.

Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, who was active in the fight against similar legislation in Indiana a year ago, has been among the most vocal . . .

. . . Apple issued a statement saying “our stores and our company are open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. We urge Gov. Deal to veto the discriminatory legislation headed to his desk and send a clear message that Georgia’s future is one of inclusion, diversity and continued prosperity."

The bill, which lawmakers approved on Wednesday, now faces the scrutiny of Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican. But it is clear that companies and sports organizations, including Apple, Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines and the National Football League, will have a significant effect on public debate and the governor’s decision to sign or veto the measure.

Supporters of the bill, which Georgia lawmakers named the Free Exercise Protection Act, say it is a bulwark against pressure for people of many religious faiths to endorse, or at least accept, same-sex marriage.

Georgia Prospers, a coalition of corporations based in Georgia or with deep ties to the state, said more than 480 companies agreed that the bill “could harm our ability to create and keep jobs that Georgia families depend upon.”

Corporate opposition, strategists said, will be central to the efforts to defeat the bill with Mr. Deal, who is known for his careful cultivation of the business community. Supporters of the law said corporate involvement would be meddling.

The new version of the bill [that passed] provides Religious Freedom Restoration Act levels of protection for certain protected persons, but it explicitly says these protections cannot apply in cases of “invidious discrimination.” Of course, no one is in favor of invidious discrimination, but the problem is that in the hands of a liberal judge, everything looks like invidious discrimination even when it is not, such as religious universities or adoption agencies that want their policies to reflect their teachings on marriage. This apes the bad “fix” that gutted the Indiana religious freedom bill.

What this “fix” means in practice is that if a new or existing law creating special legal privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity conflicts with a sincere religious belief, the Georgia religious freedom bill may provide no protection—not even the standard balancing test that is the hallmark of religious freedom restoration acts. So in an area where we most need religious liberty protection, the new Georgia law goes out of its way to disclaim it.

. . . the new Georgia bill provides no protection for bakers or florists or other similar wedding professionals who cannot help celebrate a same-sex wedding. While it does provide protections for priests and pastors not to have to perform same-sex weddings and for everyone not to attend them, the U.S. Constitution already provides such protections. So the bill doesn’t protect those who most need it, but it protects those who already have it.